Buying a lens. help?

dantambok · November 11, 2010

I have a canon 7D and I`m thinking of buying either a canon 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2
Which one would you recommend for everyday use?(taking walks, some portraits and all around)
I have heard that there are focusing issues for these lenses and would it be ok if it`s bought without testing?:dunno

thanks,
dan

ThatCanonGuy · November 11, 2010

Have used neither, but I think both focus pretty slowly. I would use neither for everyday use and/or walkaround. I suggest a 24-105 f/4L or if you can't afford it a 28-135. Or do you want primes instead of zooms? I'm just saying, a slow-focusing lens isn't going to be very useful for walkaround. The 2 you mentioned are both mainly for portraits.

ziggy53 · November 11, 2010

Of those 2 choices the Canon EF 85mm, f1.2L II USM is by far my choice for a crop 1.6x body and head shots/head-and-shoulders. Usable wide open the DOF is truly thin and you have to follow best focus techniques to make it work. Also a wonderful lens for landscapes, if you need the particular FOV it provides.

The EF 50mm, f1.2 L USM is softer wide open but the focal length is more suitable for indoor use (again, speaking mostly of crop camera host). It is also slower to focus than the 85mm, f1.2L II. Similar care is required for accurate focus wide open.

If you have the room to shoot the EF 135mm, f2L USM is also a splendid portrait lens.

My own choice is the 135mm, f2L "and" the 50mm, f1.4 USM for less money than either of first mentioned lenses and I do not regret the decision. I use those lenses on crop 1.6x/APS-C, crop 1.3x/APS-H and FF bodies.

divamum · November 11, 2010

My own choice is the 135mm, f2L "and" the 50mm, f1.4 USM for less money than either of first mentioned lenses and I do not regret the decision. I use those lenses on crop 1.6x/APS-C, crop 1.3x/APS-H and FF bodies.

Ditto.

tenoverthenose · November 11, 2010

Both are high quality lenses that work well in low light. What focal length do you use the most when you walk around? Everyone has a different style and needs. Personally, neither of those would fit my style for how you suggested using the lens.

ThatCanonGuy · November 11, 2010

Has anyone experienced the wierd-shaped bokeh the 50 1.4 is reputed to have? Seems like the reviews say it doesn't have circular bokeh.

ziggy53 · November 11, 2010

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Has anyone experienced the wierd-shaped bokeh the 50 1.4 is reputed to have? Seems like the reviews say it doesn't have circular bokeh.

While the Canon 50mm, f1.4 USM does not have quite as good a bokeh signature as the 50mm, f1.2L, it's still very good looking for most subjects. The f1.4 version has an 8-bladed diaphragm while the f1.2 version has 8 "curved" blades.

At the worst, to smooth busy bokeh you just have to loosely select the subject matter, then feather the selection, then invert the selection. Then you apply a Gaussian blur to the background and you're done. If you want to really push the background out of focus there is more to it but to match the bokeh quality of the f1.2 for most scenes it's a 5 minute job, and that's only when it's required.

Remember that from 1993 until 2006 the f1.4 was the best choice for Canon AF 50mm, prime lenses. The fabled f1L was just too expensive even when you could find it. (I recall one that sold for around $5000USD, but they were regularly around $3000-$3500.)

Please help to dispel the myth that the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is at all a bad lens. It is, in actuality, a very good AF prime, and it's a fraction of the cost of the EF 50mm, f1.2 L USM.

20DNoob · November 11, 2010

If I was going to get another 50mm(already have three) it would be the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar.

JimKarczewski · November 11, 2010

I have the 50/1.4 and never seen any "weird" bokeh, wide open or stopped down all the way. One of my favorite lenses on my 5DII for landscape panoramas. I also think the 85/1.2 is overkill unless you REALLY NEED the 1.2.. as mentioned, I think the better choice is the 135L (don't own, but would love to add it next to my collection) and the 50/1.4. I do believe as mentioned by Christian, the Zeiss 50/1.4 would be my choice if had to buy one today. I say that even thought the Zeiss is Manual Focus. My 50 has been back to CPS 3 times for repair and it's one of those lenses that either works or it doesn't (at times.) Thankfully CPS has replaced/repaired the focusing mechanism every time at no charge, but I shouldn't have to send a lens back so many times for repair of the same thing, and so is the saga of the 50/1.4...

chrisjohnson · November 12, 2010

I don't think I would buy either of these lenses as a general purpose walkaround on a 7D. Both are portrait lenses, essentially - especially the 85 mm.

I use a zoom (17-55) and if I wanted a general purpose prime for my crop camera (40D) I would look at the 35mm which is closest to where I take most of my walkaround shots. If I had to choose only between 50 and 85 for general use I would take the 50.

Matthew Saville · November 12, 2010

In my opinion, there is NOTHING "walk-around" about either of the 1.2's. They're heavy, sluggish, and honestly for walk-around type photography I prefer a 35mm focal length or equivalent, which would be 20 or 24mm on crop.

If you want a good walk-around lens for the 7D, just get a cheap small 24mm f/2.8 for $300 and you'll be able to take most any casual image you could want. Or if you find yourself shooting "casual portraits" pretty often, or more incognito candids etc, then I highly recommend the 85 1.8 as a GREAT low-profile, inconspicuous lens for casual portraits and incognito street candids. Heck you could get BOTH for less than half the price of one 50 1.2...

Both of these lenses are nice but not perfect, admittedly. If you want paramount sharpness and image quality perfection, that's a whole different ballgame. But honestly having shot for years in both professional and casual situations, I would absolutely prefer something light and small any time money is NOT being transacted, and even in many cases when it is. Never underestimate the power of enabling your subjects to let their guard down...

=Matt=

Brett1000 · November 13, 2010

Matthew Saville wrote: »

In my opinion, there is NOTHING "walk-around" about either of the 1.2's. They're heavy, sluggish, and honestly for walk-around type photography I prefer a 35mm focal length or equivalent, which would be 20 or 24mm on crop.

If you want a good walk-around lens for the 7D, just get a cheap small 24mm f/2.8 for $300 and you'll be able to take most any casual image you could want. Or if you find yourself shooting "casual portraits" pretty often, or more incognito candids etc, then I highly recommend the 85 1.8 as a GREAT low-profile, inconspicuous lens for casual portraits and incognito street candids. Heck you could get BOTH for less than half the price of one 50 1.2...

Both of these lenses are nice but not perfect, admittedly. If you want paramount sharpness and image quality perfection, that's a whole different ballgame. But honestly having shot for years in both professional and casual situations, I would absolutely prefer something light and small any time money is NOT being transacted, and even in many cases when it is. Never underestimate the power of enabling your subjects to let their guard down...

=Matt=

I agree, my "walk around" lens is a 17-50 zoom but if you want to walk around with a crop model and carry a bag of primes then the Sigma 30mm 1.4, Canon 85mm, Canon 50m, Canon 135, etc. would work

ThatCanonGuy · November 13, 2010

Oh sorry, I was getting my fifties mixed up ;~). It's the 50 1.2 that supposedly has wierd bokeh. Here is where I saw it, at the bottom of the page:

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311

dantambok · November 15, 2010

Thanks for all the replies. I think i got something messed up since i already have a 17-55mm which is for my walk around lens. I think i`m getting the 50mm for portrait work...
cheers

chrisjohnson · November 15, 2010

dantambok wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I think i got something messed up since i already have a 17-55mm which is for my walk around lens. I think i`m getting the 50mm for portrait work...
cheers

Makes more sense.

I use the 100mm macro - which you also own - for portraits. What are you missing with this lens?

dantambok · November 16, 2010

goldenballs wrote: »

Makes more sense.

I use the 100mm macro - which you also own - for portraits. What are you missing with this lens?

I think the 100mm macro is a little bit too close. I also want the 1.2 so that i could use it in low-light conditions:D

Matthew Saville · November 16, 2010

dantambok wrote: »

I think the 100mm macro is a little bit too close. I also want the 1.2 so that i could use it in low-light conditions:D

The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is certainly *not* going to make a difference for low-light performance, in fact in extremely low light I'm MUCH happier to have a lens that focuses snappy, than an extra 1/3 or 1/2 stop of light.

So, once again, I'm strongly recommending a pair of f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses as "walk-around" lenses. But, that's just me, and I'm really big on shooting light, small, and incognito. It really helps, IMO...

=Matt=

divamum · November 16, 2010

Dan, get the 85mm 1.8. If you find you love it and use it all the time, you can then sell it and get the 1.2. But really, until you're sure you NEEEEEEEEDD that big expensive lens (rather than simply lust after it because you've heard it's "the best money can buy"), save the pennies and learn how to use the focal length to your advantage. The 85 1.8 is probably Canon's best bang for buck - sharp, light, fast to focus, accurate and cheap (with a high resale value). You won't regret it and if you do then want the 85 1.2? You can get it *knowing* why it's the best lens for you.

dantambok · November 16, 2010

divamum wrote: »

Dan, get the 85mm 1.8. If you find you love it and use it all the time, you can then sell it and get the 1.2. But really, until you're sure you NEEEEEEEEDD that big expensive lens (rather than simply lust after it because you've heard it's "the best money can buy"), save the pennies and learn how to use the focal length to your advantage. The 85 1.8 is probably Canon's best bang for buck - sharp, light, fast to focus, accurate and cheap (with a high resale value). You won't regret it and if you do then want the 85 1.2? You can get it *knowing* why it's the best lens for you.

I actually thought of doing that but there`s one problem. If i buy a 1.8 and decide to sell it, I can`t since I live in the Philippines and it`s not like there in the US. And not everybody here owns a SLR. The 85mm 1.8 costs about 370$, most people here won`t even buy that.

Buying a lens. help?

Comments